We a?6 receipt of yovlr letter of October 22.1939, ia which fop reque*t aa oplnbn of &is Department on the fads and questioaa a8 aet out kr your lctkr na fallow&r

‘lu 19g9 ~,ele&ioa wo$ held ia Fie’irker County, Tesu, by r&tch the bonds of ail t&a separate road dtatricta ef the cw&y ware araumed by the county Road udl nsw beads larred deaigaati ‘Firher +uaty BOati,’ Effort ie made by the tu collector of Fisher County to eolloat tax from the rdlroada ia Fithe Couuty 6x1 their iatmgiblr assets rolling dock b -0 $ l ~F”tynty ride mad tax levy made rubrw qua+ to qis rl*ctioa.

Honor&l8 @e Q. Feud6r,

‘My county, or any pblitical subdiviston of coun- ty, or any road d+trict that ha8 bean may heieaiter cfeated by l uy penen or ape&l law. is hereby ao- horited to ismlu’bondr for the purpose of the’ eoastrac- tion, uy@tenance and operation of macadamtied, grawl- ed pawd roads turnpikes, or in aid thereof, in any of tht assessed valuation amouut not to exceed eno-fourth of the real such county politicaI subdlvinion road district, and to levy and coklect ad valorem taxes to pay tke Merest on sirch bonds aod provide &king fund for the redemption thereof. Such bonds shall be is- sued ia the mlaasr hereinafter provided, and as coatem- plated and authorized by Section 52, of &tiole 3, of the Coastitution af this State. The term ‘politiaal subdivision’ as rued i” this Act, shall be construed to mean any com- ~missiooers precinct or any Justice precinct of a county. now or herenfter to be created aad establirhed.* Subuquant to w is+anco of said bonda the Coxnmisrianers’ Court said cmty *es ad awthor~wd by Article 752k and AP 1-d tide 7S2l .d Ve~rnon’s b&at&d Civil Statutes, which read an follows:

+Art. 7S2k. Ad wlor6.m tax levy B&or+, such b&~ shrll I+ put ,&uLt& karket, the Conuty Genxhisri~rs~ Coort of thi Cm&y ifh which duolr’elktikin wai hdd, s&all levy aii rd.ilo+em tax fficient to pay’the ,@rast ea such bad8 Ipa to vide 8 rhkhg fund,to pay the b&.at ma&&y.

Humorable 388 G. Fender,

‘Each incorporated railroad company, ferry eom- paay, bridge company, turnpike toI! compuy, oil pipe line .compmy. rod all common carrier pipe line ctunpsa- ics of ewry characbr what8ower, engaged in the trans- portation ofoil, dotig busineu wholly or in part within thi8 State, whether incorporated under the laws of this State, ore * any other State, territory, or foreign coun- try, and eyery other individorl. company, corporation asrociation doing business of the same. character in this State, in addition to the ad valorem taxes on tangible properties which may imposed upon them re- spectively, bylaw. shall pay an anaual tax to the State, beginning with the first day of January of each year, on their intaaglble assets and property, local taxes thereon to the counties in which its businens is carried on1 which~additional tax shali be assessed aad levied up- on such intaagible assets and in the manner pro- vided ixvthis chapter. The county counties in which such taxer are to be paid, and the manner of appotiion- ccordancd with meat of the ssme shall be dekrmiaed the provisioiu Of this dhapter.*

The exact questlabr which you ask confronted the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin iqthe case of Bell County vs. Hines, 219 S.K SS6. The bouds issued by Ball County were called *Bell County Special ,Road Bonds.” According to yeur ldter, year bomds were designated as *Fish- er County Road Binds.” The court $n this case ~woted what was then Article 7414, Revishd Statutes; rhibh is now Article 7liXJ Of tke Re- *ised Civil Statutes of i92S, su@a. The cou+ held that under this viaion ram Lt&k~r+d intjag+ie nos~is of railroad company were subJect to tir~ssm~&. and payment of tams, which had beon lev- ied fbr tlm pagwPt.d Wudy Road Bonds. While thir ease was decidi ed under ths old titatutes, which were amended in 1926, *era is no dif- ferewe between the old statute8 and Article 7S2a. supra, .u e-ted in 1926. which woul&lead te different ris~tt;Wyour cksel To brrr this 6ut, *e d8h t6 ceil y0u* 8tGntion to the @ding’of the Ci**~i0+, d Appeals of Texu’ia ,fie &se 6f State w. Texas Pacific R&my.GO. 62 S.W. (td) 81. In this tsqa, ths Cornmisrim of Appeals was eonearned with Road Bonds ia,sved by number of counties which constitutedlone road district 8s authoriaed by Article 778a Of YarnOn'~ Aanotated,GtVU St&&es. The authority to issue bonds under this statute 1~ comforted in’laqpage wbieh la very similar te the lazquge used in ArticlL 752% *4 Honorable Joe G. Fender. P8ge 4

rkpra, as enacted ia 1926. which would lead to a different result fn’your case. To bear this out, we wish to call your attention to&e. holding of the Comxnission Appeals af Texas in the case of State vs!, T&as & Pacific Railway Co., S. W. (2d) 81. In thle case. the Conupbrion of Appe8ls was concerned with Ro8d Bonds, issued by a number .of cou8- ties which constituted one rord district as authorized by Article 778a Veruon’m Annotated Civil Statutes. The authority to issue bonds of Yeman’s Anaotated Civil Statutes. The authority to I?sue bonds uader this statute la c&nferred in language which is very similar to the lan- gu8ge used ia Article TSta, supra. The cou:?t here held that the intmgi- ble assets and rolling stocKof railroads operating in the various coun- ties were subfect to the payment of the tax which had been levied pursu- ant to the iasuauee of the road bonds of said counties. In fact, we fihd that the Comaaission of Appeals is here extending the rule as set down by the Court of Civfl Appeals in the Ball case. is the opinion of this Dep8rtrnent. therefore, that intan-

It gible assets and rolling stock of the railroad operating in Fisher County subject to a county-wide read tax levy made pursuant to your alec- in 1929, and the issusnc4 of the Fisher Ckmty Road Bonds. tion

Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS @pd.) Bffly Goldberg w Billy Goldberg Auistant APPROVED NOV 14 1929 BG:RS (Sgd.) W. F. Moqre

FIRST ASSISTANT

A’PTORNEY GENERAL

APPROVED OPINlGN COMMTTTEE BWB BY CHAlRMAN